ruling please

[vegas fund]

playing live sitngoblinds 25-50 2 fold , call, fold , call then one of the players that are due to act not next but after that see's that he has been dealt 3 cards bit of talk about it being a miss deal between the players for a little bit then some left to act muck cards and one of the callers mucks cards face up ( k-8 off suit under the gun mind you) then one of the player pipe's up about it being significant action and the hand must be played out and this is the good bit he says it should be played out with the player whose cards where mucked face up to play the hand with said cards face up for the rest of the hand. now old mate seems to think he know everything there is to know about poker but does this sound as stupid to you as it did to me. this was for cash $50 sitngo at you guessed it pokerdome

[yoyo]

The significant action rule is pretty powerful (often too powerful I think perhaps - didn't someone play out a hand once after discovering 2x As in the deck)?The way I see it, if you follow the significant action rule, the hand will play on. The players who mucked cards face down have mucked their cards. The players who mucked their cards faceup have effectively exposed their cards and be treated as per the house rules for exposed cards. Of course, the K8 player is forced to play his hand, which could really include the crazy play of mucking preflop. Or everyone could realise they are playing an early hand in a $50 SNG that is really going to be decided by a few all-ins 45 min from this point, and they can agree to re-deal the hand due to the misdeal, ignoring the calls. Where is Blocker when you need him?

[Punty]

I dont believe the "significant action" rule would stand when someone has been dealt 3 cards. If it did, than what would happen to the player with 3 cards? Do they get to play with all 3, or are they forced to muck?Use a bit of common sense and redeal.

[Blu3B3ar]

This is a pretty messed-up problem. Although "significant action" has occurred, requiring the game to continue and forcing the player with 3 cards to play (or even forced to muck) falls outside the scope of rules. In other words, if the person who 3 cards plays, he is advantaged while if he is required to fold, he is disadvantaged.My opinion is that a redeal is required. However, I believe the correct course of action is to immediately notify the supervising Pokerdome tournament director(s) who has extensive experience mediating these type of ruling conflicts. They are there to help.

[Andrew Selvaggi]

lol its alright let that guy play pineapple while the rest play normal hold em' now that would be fun!My understanding, is that if a player has been delt more than the amount that the games rules permit, (hold em' 2, pineapple 3, omaha 4 etc....) then that is a breach of the games rules and it is automatically a miss deal. The play that has been delt the 3 cards can not be expected to muck and not play his hand because of a dealer error nor can he pick a card he wants to give back. Even though there has been "significant action" its a break of the rules of the game being played and is automattically a miss deal, i've seen it happen a few times.

[Jonno P]

There has definately been substantial action on this hand (two or more voluntary actions).The player has the incorrect number of cards and therefore their hand is dead, and the game continues. Although it is a dealer error, the onus is on the player to ensure they have the correct number of cards.Any players who have folded thinking it is a misdeal cannot retrieve their cards, regardless of whether they have shown their hand (and could be subject to a penalty for doing so with action pending). The only reason I can see for retrieving the tabled cards from the muck is if the player is all in for less than the amount required to call, but that is an anomally and would have to be treated on its merits.

[yoyo]

Jonno, its great that you jump on and give the correct rulings for these things. But as your personal opinion would go, would you agree with Punty and, to a lesser extent, myself that if a player is dealt 3 cards, it should be a misdeal and the "substantial action" ignored?I can understand the logic of the official Crown or TDA ruling, and the rules are pretty clear and simple, but it seems to me that from a fairness standpoint, you have a totally screwed up, messed up hand with hole cards all in different spots from where they would be if the dealer wasn't downie. In addition, you have a player who is disadvantaged by having a non-blind hand mucked purely through no fault of his own, perhaps through a crappy dealer or sticky cards or whatever. It just seems to me the blindingly simple fair option would be to declare a misdeal and redeal the hand. Do you agree or disagree? ps. Dealer errors tilt me so hard. I know they are a part of the B&M and live game, but they always seem to happen at the most obscure inopportune time.

[vegas fund]

i am with punty on this my thought was common sense should prevail and the hand redealt.other wise the guy who got 3 cards is disadvantaged through none of his own fault all though it is up to him to make sure he has the right amount of cards (but then again it would be easy to miss if your watching the action of everyone else befor it gets to you.) my call would be bets returned to players hand redealt. what happened was 3 cards was forced to muck guy next to him raised it up everyone else folded and he won the pot.WTF was all i could come up with on that one.

[JK.]

For all those players who think that it is an automatic miss deal,despite the "substential action",think again.Lets say the player with three cards ,is last to act.Before him there are several allins and the pot is now a huge $10,000.It is now his turn but he discovers that he has three cards.The three cards are rags so he demands a miss deal.Lets imagine that he is dealt two Aces in his three cards.He does not want a miss deal,so he keeps quiet and slips one card one the floor under the table.What I am trying to say is that a player can't have his apple and eat it too.The hand is dead or it is not dead.We have the "substential action" rule for the above mentioned reason.A player can't demand that he gets a miss deal just because he has a lousy hand but keeps quiet if he has a good hand.In all poker game versions,a player with too few or too many hands,has a dead hand if there has been substantial action.Substantial action differs from club to club.Having said that,the most sensible for the above shambles,would have been a miss deal.No real money was involved with couple of calls and folds.I doubt that anyone on the table would have been against a missdeal.Until the players started folding,one with face up cards,the call would have been continue,Once it became a shambles,the best call is a miss deal.Rules are meant to be simple and to simplify the problem situations.In this particular situation the simplest call is a miss deal.

[yoyo]

Thanks JK - good points. So I guess a lot of the rules are limiting the options players who receive extra cards have to work the situation in their favour. Love the old one card under the table trick - I found an As under the table at a 2/4 limit home game once and it seemed everyone was saying I was over-reacting. Well, I was down $49 that night with no hope of fighting back, and it looked like the entire night was a sham of cheating carnies and questionable blowins. I had no suspect so what I do in those situations is look for the worst-presented option. He/She then would become my suspect. Even if they are accused falsely, they have no answer to the charges of the Fashion Police and the special Gillette strike force. Beards. wtf?Needless to say, we got a confession.